I came across this "test" in one of my friend's xangas. It basically tests you to see if you hold true to your beliefs about God and the world. It's not testing you to see if what you believe is right or wrong, it's like.. testing your consistency of your beliefs. It's pretty interesting, and I thought you guys might enjoy it
My score had 2 direct hits xD Pretty good, if I do say so myself Posts: 147 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh heh. I took a couple of hits, but they were due to being forced to interpret the wording of a question without knowing how similar wording would be used later in the test
posted
For example, the "firm, inner conviction" question ... I answered that it was justifiable to base beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction regardless of evidence. This isn't how I would phrase my own beliefs, but it seemed pretty close to my position that faithfully pursuing a religious hypothesis based on subjective evidence is a legitimate means of seeking truth.
I also answered elswhere that morality remains constant, with or without the existence of God.
Then I got hit for saying that the rapist who blamed his crimes on God was not justified.
I can see why, of course, but since the questions didn't really fit perfectly into my view of the world, the hit wasn't QUITE right. On a second playthrough, I would say "False" to the "firm, inner conviction" question because I DO believe that it is important to watch the results of living by your faith and use them as "external evidence" to bolster or disprove the veracity of your decision, and that morality is a concept that exists independent of God. So long before this dude raped anyone, he had a responsibility to recognize that his beliefs would lead him to do harm, and abandon them.
But there were no write-in answers Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought since there's a lack of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster that it probably didn't exist. But apparently, the Loch Ness Monster and God are on the same boat, since I put that having lack of evidence of God makes atheism a faith and not a rationality.. or something. I hope that others don't hold the two beings on the same level o_o
Posts: 147 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Careful, there are people around here who make EXACTLY that kind of comparison. But only when they think it will annoy a religious person ... Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But only when they think it will annoy a religious person ...
That was unnecessary.
I'm confused as to why it's not faith for someone to not believe in the Loch Ness monster, but it is to not believe in God. I don't think the burden of proof changes based on the thing trying to be proved, whether it be a monster, a god, ghosts, or what have you.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Loch Ness Monster represented a movement of people, a way of life, or a moral code, or if it were in any way more than just a curiosity, the analogy might work. But there are many more reasons for a person to explore and place faith in a religion beyond a simple desire to believe in something cool.
And I made my "unnecessary" comment in the hope that I might stave off the inevitable "Actually, Kitsune, I, the clever atheist, think that God is JUST as ridiculous as the Loch Ness Monster, and here's why."
But I guess such things truly are inevitable.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not equating God with the Loch Ness Monster; I'm saying that I consider the burden of proof to show that either exists to be the same. So if one doesn't consider it an act of faith to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster, it seems to me that he or she should also not consider atheism an act of faith. I know that religion is an important part of many people's lives, and I don't intend to imply that belief in God is "ridiculous".
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No hits. No bullets. I got the TPM Medal of Honour.
Another interesting thing on that page was the God Builder. I didn't really agree with their scoring system, but I thought the exercise was thought provoking.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The test didn't take into account scripture.
I answered exactly as Puppy did, on the rapist but my answer was based in the fact that I believe in God's revelation through scripture, which means I'm able to determine when someone acts contrary to what is written there. That means I can determine that the rapist acted contrary to God's will because he acted contrary to what is written in scripture.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got no hits or bullets on the first try. This test doesn't take a number of things into account, actually. Unfortunately, it only follows what the creators of the test consider to be logical (Or more correctly, it follows the guidelines of the book advertised on the final page, I'm guessing), rather than what is logical. I'm of the belief that logic is dictated by point of view rather than popular acceptance.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
